I find this argument weak.First, Hamas has a destabilisation power over Israel for the victims Hamas’ attacks provoke and for their indirect effects (psychological trauma for the population, internal migration and lack of investments due to perceived insecurity, political extremism/division). — neomac
Ah, sorry to say this, but I've heard this so many times this lurid narrative during the war on terror. But let's think about this.Second, given Hamas extremism and support from Muslim world, there is a risk they could manage to get and use biological/chemical weapons — neomac
OK, first of all, nobody else has territorial demands on Israel than the Palestinians naturally, who want their own independent state and Syria, which lost the Golan Heights to Israel in 1967. Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or Saudi-Arabia or Iran don't have territorial demands on Israel.Third, Hamas is not a relatively isolated threat (as the Basque or IRA terrorism were). Indeed, it can easily combine with anti-Zionist threats coming from incumbent hostile forces (states and jihadist groups) around Israel, which also may have territorial demands over Israel as history has shown. Besides if Iran’s race for nuclear weapons succeeds, the support to Iran from Russia and China continues, while the support to Israel from the US declines and the normalisation with the Saudis doesn’t succeed fast enough, Israel survival as a state can be very much in danger. The world is changing. — neomac
I think we've already had this discussion when it was current. Starting from the fact that if you make an impenetrable border, then you'll move people to come on dingies and whatever ships from the Gulf coast or the Pacific.What actual solutions do you have in mind? — NOS4A2
To show argue my point, let's delve into this.Didn’t Finland start building a big fence just recently? — NOS4A2
Trump couldn't even get the wall built. That's how bad he is. And building just a wall which can be circumvented isn't an answer.Biden ended the Trump’s national emergency and the border wall construction on his first day in office. Now he’s dealing with a crisis at the border. Now the crisis is the biggest problem facing America, according to public opinion, costing the tax-payer more than it would have cost to build the wall. — NOS4A2
The real hoax is that we should believe what Trump says, in the first place.A new hoax has arisen. This time our credulity implores us to believe Trump threatened the country with a bloodbath should he lose the election. Out of context a clever propagandist could spin it that upon Trump's loss his supporters will break out the ARs and start murdering political opponents. But in context it was blatantly clear that the bloodbath Trump was speaking about was a figurative one, an economic one. — NOS4A2
The vast majority of the 458 miles were constructed in places where some kind of barrier already existed, but most of the preexisting structures were far less imposing than the new wall and included fencing and rudimentary technical barriers. The total figure also includes what the agency calls “secondary border wall” or sections of wall built behind preexisting barriers that ultimately remained in place.
Imagine this thread ending and passing into obscurity.Either 7 more months of Trump or 4 years and 7 months of Trump. But either way, he’ll be history soon enough. — Mikie
Israeli economy is quite export oriented:Israel has more advanced hardware and technology at hand. — Punshhh
In Israel, exports account for around 40 percent of GDP. Israel main exports are: cut and uncut diamonds, pearls and other precious metals and stones (33 percent of total exports); electrical machinery and equipment, mechanical machinery and appliances, sound and TV recorders and reproducers and computer equipment (22 percent) and chemical products (11 percent). Main export partners are: United States (28 percent of total exports) and Hong Kong (8 percent). Others include: Belgium, United Kingdom, India and China.
Most of those trucks are going to southern Gaza. In the north mass starvation is already well under way. — Punshhh
Plenty? Prior to the war it was about 500 trucks that brought supplies daily into Gaza, which made the case manageable. It's not 500 trucks daily.And Israel has let in plenty of aid. Netanyahu claims a 1:1 civilian to terrorist death ratio. — BitconnectCarlos
(March 7th,2024) 21 Palestinians in Gaza, including at least 17 children, have died of malnutrition and dehydration, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. The true death toll due to starvation is feared to be much higher as many Palestinians, particularly in northern Gaza, face famine and are almost entirely cut off from the limited humanitarian aid entering Gaza through the southern Rafah crossing.
(Oxfam, March 17th) Israeli authorities have rejected a warehouse full of international aid including oxygen, incubators and Oxfam water and sanitation gear all of which is now stockpiled at Al Arish just 40 km away from the border of 2.3 million desperate Palestinians in Gaza.
The aid originates from many humanitarian organisations around the world and has been rejected over weeks and months as a result of an unpredictable and chaotic regime of approval, scanning and inspection, ultimately controlled by Israeli authorities. The reasons for rejection are not clear, says Oxfam.
In a new report today, Oxfam said this rejected aid was just one example of an overall humanitarian response that Israel has made so dangerous and dysfunctional as to be impossible for aid agencies to work at the speed and scale necessary to save lives, despite best efforts.
Oxfam says that Israel’s government ultimately bears accountability for the breakdown of the international response to the crisis in Gaza. It is failing in its legal responsibilities to the people whose land it occupies and breaking one of the key provisions demanded by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – to boost humanitarian aid in light of the risk of genocide in Gaza.
Oxfam believes that people living in Gaza will suffer mass death from disease and starvation far beyond the current 31,000 Palestinian war casualties unless Israel takes immediate steps to end its violations.
“The ICJ order should have shocked Israeli leaders to change course, but since then conditions in Gaza have actually worsened,” said Oxfam Middle East and North Africa Director, Sally Abi Khalil. “The fact that other governments have not challenged Israel hard enough, but instead turned to less effective methods like airdrops and maritime corridors is a huge red flag, signalling that Israel continues to deny the full potential of better ways to deliver more aid”.
“Israeli authorities are not only failing to facilitate the international aid effort but are actively hindering it. We believe that Israel is failing to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide,” Abi Khalil said.
Oxfam’s report “Inflicting Unprecedented Suffering and Destruction” identifies seven crucial ways that Israel is actively preventing the delivery of international aid into Gaza and punishing all Palestinians living in Gaza by deliberately depriving them of life and safety.
The report says that Israeli authorities:
- Only allow aid in via two crossings into Gaza – at Rafah and KarmAbu Salem/Kerem Shalom – despite having total control to open more, thereby creating avoidable choke points for aid and trade.
- Are leading a dysfunctional and undersized inspection system that keeps aid snarled up, subjected to onerous, repetitive and unpredictable bureaucratic procedures that are contributing to trucks being stranded in giant queues for 20 days on average.
- Are routinely and arbitrarily rejecting items of aid as having “dual (military) use”, banning vital fuel and generators entirely along with other items vital for a meaningful humanitarian response such as protective gear and communications kit. Much rejected aid must go through a complex “pre-approval” system or end up being held in limbo at the Al Arish warehouse in Egypt.
- Have cracked down on humanitarian missions, largely sealing off northern Gaza, and restricting international humanitarian workers’ access not only into Gaza, but Israel and the West Bank including East Jerusalem too.
Israel has allowed 15,413 trucks into Gaza during the past 157 days of war. Oxfam says the population of Gaza needed five times more than that just to meet their minimum needs. In February, Israel allowed 2,874 trucks in – a 44% reduction from the month before.
I think Bernie has been in Congress since the 1990's and is so old that he participated as a young man in the civil rights movement.I see Bernie as a kind of extension of occupy, which was more clearly populist and I at least think it's worth recognising a spectrum of populism with what I call power populism and what you see as populism proper the most virulent form of the phenomenon. — Baden
(Is Bernie a populist? He might be popular, but I'm not so sure he is a populist. But let's keep this more to the lines of political philosophy.)Cause populism gets behind an ostensibly moral cause, could be worker's rights, climate change, corporate reform, free speech, etc. Or it could be a combination of these. But essentially a cause populist should be driven by and be able to articulate an ideological goal that determines a coherent set of responsibilities that their leader is bound to carry out while in office (and be judged by his or her ability to do so). The social framework is situated in the idea of the building of a better society by removing special interests in the establishment that have heretofore prevented this from happening.
I think Bernie Sanders is a good example of a cause populist. — Baden
In my view your definition of Power populism is what populism really is. Cause populism is more like a classic political movement, which naturally has those against it that are happy with current situation and the present status quo.I see power populism on the other hand as resting on the promise of power without responsibility, of the resetting of power dynamics as an end in itself with the audience being those who believe that power has been wielded irresponsibly and unjustly against them. The social framework of the power populist is society not as a cooperative among interested parties but as an arena where one party must dominate (and whoever currently dominates is the elite). But the wish of the power populist is not really to rid society of elites, but to become their replacement (an elite by any other name). And the means are virtually irrelevant. Nor does the leader have any particular responsibilities except to wield power against those who his followers see as previously wielding it against them. — Baden
And this should be noted when these values are excepted by for example by members of the United Nations. Many members aren't Western, don't share similar history and have different starting points for how they understand their society from the way Western individualism understands societies. And that does say a lot.True values arise from the culture of individual societies, they are relative and must be linked to each other in a globalized world by being translated like languages. — Wolfgang
Correction, do note it's not the "Kremlins plan" what he says:Back on Jul 27, 2022, he posted the Kremlin's plan for Ukraine according to him: — jorndoe
Which still is extremely delusional. Haven't heard anyone in the West purposing that Poland, even Romania, would take large parts of Ukraine. The only theoretical discussion has been about Moldova and Romania, which share a lot.(by Google translate): In the brain of the President of Ukraine, damaged by psychotropic substances, the following picture of the bright future of his country arose (Fig. 1).
Western analysts believe that this will actually be the case (Fig. 2).
On the contrary, they show what Russian foreign policy in it's near abroad is like. And shows the reason why the Eastern European countries especially the Baltic countries wanted to join NATO and were quite correct in joining NATO.Well these other pre-2008 things are not really vis-a-vis Ukraine, it's seems closer to reading tea leaves. — boethius
(Before 1991 you did have the Empire intact with the Soviet Union.)I'm arguing that if Putin had designs on Ukraine since 1999 or even 1991 or even before for that matter, that NATO expansion played into his designs and provided him the pretext to consolidate domestic support. — boethius
Putin doesn't care about international business and economics. That has been obvious for quite a while. He has made his career from starting wars, actually. I think he is quite happy place with Russia transforming to a war-state.If there was no reason to do so there was a lot of business and money in dealing with the West so it would be a difficult sell to other Russian elites as well as the public. — boethius
Well, Russia didn't start talks about aquiring parts of Ukraine as in the case of Stalin with Finland, if that is your point. But otherwise it's quite different. The Finns didn't start negotiations with Russians in the start of the Winter War, only when the military situation was desperate. Just ask yourself then: when did the Finns have negotiations with Russians in 1941, 1942 or 1943? Zelensky has tried negotiate with the Russians, several times. In fact, his campaign for the Ukrainian presidency started with trying to negotiate with the Russians, which he attempted before the Russian invasion. So your comment is very absurd, the typical Ukraine bashing we hear from you.The idea Zelensky has tried to negotiate more than the Finns in the Winter War (what I was talking about) is completely absurd. — boethius
There naturally is both right wing populism and leftist populism. Perfect example of far left populism in our time is Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.2) populism is not restricted to the politicians who get labelled this way. In the US both Republicans (who were career politicians and not considered fringe by most) and Democrats (also having those characteristics) have run with significant degrees of implied or stated populist rhetoric. — Bylaw
I agree. The populist leader has to create the myth around him (or her) that he either has had this awakening or that from the start he has been fighting against these elites. As you said, the black sheep are in the perfect position here as they have nothing to lose, they are already out from the 'in-crowd'. And it surely gives that personal drive for the revenge against them.the people running as populists are part of the elites. They may claim outsiderness, but at most their sort of black sheep of the elites. Trump and Clinton for example have been attending the same events and power groups for decades. So, you get a slightly to significantly loose cannon elite member when you vote for a populist. Why is this so? Well, you just can't be some kind of (merely seeming) outsider with any chance of winning without having tremendous power and connections. But given the myth of outsiderness, now you have a mandate to make changes, sweeping and deep changes. Well, that's autocratic. Of course, it could be a benevolent dictatorship and there are a few rare instances where people came in made big changes and allowed other factions to take over when voted in. But it's rare. — Bylaw
From my perspective anyone who can be in a position to become president is an elite. Left and right mainstream are just differently wings of the same neoliberal elite. — Tom Storm
And here the seductive populist narrative works very well. With it's brash rhetoric populism sounds so different and the supporter of populism thinks he or she is making changes to politics.5) And then we want to get rescued by a strong daddy (or, now, potentially, mommy). — Bylaw
The Westphalian system is the backbone of the international order. Or it should be. Here many would point out how much the sovereignty is breached by the US and the West. I think the simple fact is here that when a sovereign state loses or is incapacitated from securing it's borders, other sovereign states morph into vultures around it. Perhaps they aren't interested in the country itself, but they are interested if other nations try to get a hold in them. There are some many examples of this: Yemen, DRC, Libya etc. Especially what is worrisome that in the case of the Libyan civil war, the backers of different sides ought have to been allies! This is very damaging to the US as it's so-called allies don't act in a cohesive way, but against another. Luckily the situation in Ukraine is still clear and simple and Western Europe is committed to the support of Ukraine. The real question is the US.Among other issues, there is one which I find philosophically deep and troublesome: namely, the notion of sovereignty as it is shaped by the Westphalian system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_system) — neomac
Well, the border has been quite empty from Russian froops since 2022 for some reason. Finns were more worried about the refugee swarms, but that seems to have calmed down. There wasn't any confusion this time as Russia had already used the approach (sending refugees and migrants to the border) years ago. Then people didn't understand what was happening. Now they did and simply closed the border.BTW how are the Finns taking the recent Russian threats: — neomac
There are reasons for this. Many ideas about America that Americans have have been against it.Maybe it's odd that the United States hasn't had more populist movements? — BC
I agree. This is something that is drilled into the minds of Americans of the exceptionality of America and the American dream. You should know just how difficult is for many Americans to talk about there being classes in America. Some think of the word as being similar as "caste" and start a monologue of how the US is different from other nations.On the other hand, the elite has successfully convinced 'the people' that there are no elites (against whom to fight). 'The People' rule! God bless the United States of America!" — BC
One of the basic problems is that there isn't similar case like Ukraine when the West has supported one side in an conflict or had it's own conflicts. Invasion of Iraq was quite dubious, done with false arguments and little understanding of how unstable Iraq was. Yugoslavian civil war was indeed a civil war. And Serbia shows that even if Serbians ousted Milosevic, they weren't at all happy with the US after NATO had bombed their country. Yet the assault on Ukraine 2022 is a clear cut example of one country attacking another with Putin giving even more delusional arguments (neonazis controlling Ukraine and hence a denazification of Ukraine) than the WMD argument for invading Iraq.So to the extent there was/is a Western failure to support Ukraine adequately this may have less to do with ethic of Western decision makers than with the structural problems of Western decision making as such. And what makes your argument still pro-Putin is again its hypocritical purpose of morally discrediting the West, even if the lack of resolve and cohesion in the West is not inherently immoral and it stems also from people like you whose prejudicial distrust over Western institutions amplifies lack of resolve and cohesion. — neomac
Again it is insufficient and illogical to start viewing these conflicts from 2008.The tensions started in 2008 when NATO declared Ukraine and Georgia were on the path to NATO membership. Russia's first response was to invade Georgia. — boethius
Again this delusional rhetoric from you. We've already have had this discussion.The facts are NATO expands towards Russia all while referring to Russia as their "competitor" and "enemy" and so on, and Russia has been reacting to that expansion. — boethius
There was a very popular revolution in Ukraine, not a coup how ever you try to point out Nuland and others talking to the Ukrainians. And in your narrative you totally forget the important elections afterwards where the far right lost their seats in Parliament. That kind of example how Ukraine has improved it's democracy isn't good for your narrative. But great that you at least admit that Russia annexed Crimea. Not that Crimean people opted to join by referendum Russia after Crimean volunteers (who looked and still look like Russian VDV paratroopers and special forces) occupied the Crimean parliament and other installations.The critical pivot point was 2014 when there was a coup in Kiev and Russia annexed Crimea. — boethius
Exactly the opposite? I disagree. Zelensky has tried actually to negotiate far more than Finns did. Ukraine is far larger than Finland and in a totally different situation. Besides, Finland didn't start peace negotiations in 1941, 1942 or 1943. And this is quite logical: when there's imminent collapse (in 1940) and a hopeless situation in 1944.We Finns did the exact opposite of Zelensky: we had a diplomatic plan and used military force as leverage to get the best deal feasible in the circumstances; a deal that was both a surrender and admitting culpability for the war and repaying massive reparations to the Soviet Union — boethius
Many things aren't new in the thread. Some want repeat over and over their version of events prior to the war. That we discussed hundreds of pages ago.(↑ not new in the thread) — jorndoe
That has come obvious to others, yes. :smirk:I have zero problem discussing other people's responsibility in other countries independent of the West's policy vis-a-vis whatever it is, including Putin's responsibility, it's just not my main focus. — boethius
LOL! :grin:1. Maybe it was Putin's intention was to invade Ukraine all along, there's just no evidence for it. — boethius
Just like in the case of my country, the real question is if Russia cannot take over the country it attacked. What then? Well, then Russia simply admits defeat, like it did against the Japanese. Or the Poles. Or in a way, with us Finns making this kind of Peace deal without annexation or creating the country to be a satellite state. Likely Ukrainians have no dreams of the war ending with an Ukrainian military parade on the Red Square. But please, do promote the vast power of Russia here, if you want.2. Ukraine simply cannot win a long war with Russia and the only way to even have a chance to do that involves extreme harm to Ukraine. — boethius
And that naturally should happen from an advantage point. Hence military support of Ukraine should continue as long as the Ukrainians want and are willing to fight.the only reasonable conclusion is that the West should (especially before or at the very start of the war), if we cared about Ukraine (just not enough to send our own troops), used the West's immense negotiating leverage to workout the best deal possible for Ukraine. — boethius
The fact is still that it doesn't have the air superiority that it should have taken in a few days.As we speak Russia has achieved air superiority over the front line — boethius
At least for Finland, but also for other European countries...yes relatively stably and friendly relationship.The relatively stable and friendly relationship between Russia and the West in 2008? :chin: — Tzeentch
And that policy has to start with the real situation. Not the imagined one where everything revolves around the West and it's actions or failures.I point out my primarily responsibility: Western policy. — boethius
They went with the annexation of the Golan Heights, but I think the annexation of either Gaza or the West Bank will do quite much damage to the Israeli reputation. South Africa style sanctions are a possibility then, especially if large scale ethnic cleansing happens. I think the mood is already changing in the US. The actions now taken do have effects. For example prior to the war in Lebanon in the early 1980's there was lot of support for Israel in Finland and the Finns look at Israel being in a similar situation that they had been before. Then came the massacres of Shabra and Shatila, and many Finnish peacekeepers seeing how Israel conducted it's war in Lebanon.I think you're underestimating Bibi. He does care about what happens next and what happens next is annexation. That's the goal and it has always been that; they don't care about the consequences or what anybody else thinks or believes, because the world, the UN and everybody is against them in their self-proclaimed victimhood. — Benkei
Yeah. Now you gave the Chomsky refute.The core question is what is the best policy to manage the situation. For me I am primarily interested in Western policy, as that's where I live and the policy I'm responsible for. — boethius
You won't even understand? Who attacked? Who? I think you do understand it as you continue:How is this in anyway related to what I explain? — boethius
I disagree.Now, if you want to take this premise of Ukraine as an innocent defenceless maiden, I am the only person in this entire discussion that even entertained the idea of putting NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine before the war started (or, more precisely, larger war starting in 2022), and also made clear I'd be for such a move if our goal was indeed to "protect democracy" (also, if it worked and avoided war and nuclear exchange, that would be good too and I explained how that was achievable using common sense, negotiation leverage and the "strength" we keep hearing is Putin's only language).
The reason why Western institutions and talking heads dismissed this option out of hand is because the only way it's workable is in combination with a negotiation strategy to prevent the war actually happening. — boethius
Escalate to de-escalate is a horrible idea! I've emphasized it because it's a really, really, bad idea. Because what can the Escalate to de-escalate give justification? A Pre-emptive attack! You see, the idea comes from the narrow view that other side would behave logically to your illogical escalation. Well, it can simply create a shock that justifies more escalation.However, if the goal really was to protect Ukrainian sovereignty then you'd certainly consider very carefully the idea of sending troops into Ukraine in a "escalate to deescalate" strategy (that you've repeated yourself many times the basic logic of how that works). Even moreso if you thought Ukraine a defenceless innocent fair maiden. — boethius
Umm, what? That countries took Russian threats of nuclear war seriously and are timid then to back up Ukraine isn't because of the nuclear threats, but because they want war and not to protect Ukraine?The reason it was not considered at all, just throw a little WWIII thought-terminating cliché of why that's impossible (to go with the thought-terminating clichés of why sending heavy weapons "wasn't possible" ... it was just "no, no, no, of course note, don't be silly" ... until they send those exact weapons systems), is because the policy is to have a war and not protect Ukraine. — boethius
That's the most lurid thought for a long time. But of course, as in your alternative universe the West has planned to get Russia to attack Ukraine (just like the beautiful women sent mix message with her stunning beauty), of course the only viable objective for the West is to have a perpetual war. Because...what else would the evil West want? (Hence with deduce that beautiful women want to be raped by rapists.)In order to ensure on having a war you need to calibrate between two scenarios:
1. Russia winning outright, which ends the war, and therefore more arms and heavier weapons systems are needed to prevent this scenario whenever your risk threshold of this happening is surpassed.
2. Ukraine winning outright, which may result in Russia simply retreating to their borders and ending the war that way and taking the L or then resorting to nuclear weapons and so also ending the war, just in a different way. — boethius
Or do about it?Ok, say you're right.
Well, what did we do about it? — boethius
Yet they understood war in the Clausewitzian manner. And in 1945 they did have one: for example the US left the Emperor alone. It didn't have an objective to take Japan over and make it part of the US. And it didn't plan to move the Japanese out of their Islands and make the place a resort for Americans and build there a new America for Americans.Surely in 1941 the US did not have a postwar plan either. Yet it still went to war. — Moses
(I left the signatories away)INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER
We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government, and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated.
We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property and to comply with all requirements which may be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.
We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Headquarters to issue at once orders to the Commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.
We hereby command all civil, military, and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders, and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.
We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government, and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever actions may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.
We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all allied prisoners of war and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance, and immediate transportation to places as directed.
The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.
Signed at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 0904 I on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945
Politics is the womb in which war develops. War is the domain of physical exertion and suffering. War is not an exercise of the will directed at an inanimate matter. War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means.
A greater disaster, likely. Perhaps Bibi want's to have that moment of declaring victory, but is it going to be that. really?Similarly 10/7 may lead to something much greater, but if so the fault will not solely lie on Israel. And in any case some fights are just. — Moses
Why was the women beautiful in the first place? Her fault. She had the rape coming!Why does everything the West and Ukraine do need to be justified by "Ukrainian agency"? Because it's clearly turned out to be terrible decisions that have completely wrecked Ukraine. The situation is really bad. — boethius
This is a very interesting point you make, @baker.Populism is, essentially, plebeian mentality, and plebeian mentality is antidemocratic, simplistic, black-and-white, thus authoritarian.
It's not that the elites would have become corrupted; it's that (also because of democarcy), plebeian people, ie. people from low socio-economic classes have been able to attain positions of power (in politics, economy, education, art). These people have probably accumulated wealth and obtained higher education degrees, but they still are plebeians at heart. — baker
Equality in some matters. Legal equality. Equality in voting. Equality with the rights of freedom. Equality in being citizens of our countries.People are not only not equal, people generally despise the very idea of equality. — baker
It's telling that you forget the Philippines and the Filipinos. An invasion that started ten hours after Pearl Harbor, lasted until 1945 with half a million to one million Filipinos dying in WW2. This was a pre-emptive attack which a land invasion followed. But that's hardly something you would take notice, because it doesn't fit to the narrative to remind people that actually the US was a colonial power back then.Morally speaking, 10/7 is worse than Pearl Harbor because at least Pearl Harbor was a military target. — BitconnectCarlos
Of course. Guess we all need a refresher now on what 'comparably speaking' means.The behavior of the IDF has been remarkable humane, comparably speaking. — BitconnectCarlos
(The Guardian) Israel is facing growing international pressure for an investigation after more than 100 Palestinians in Gaza were killed when desperate crowds gathered around aid trucks and Israeli troops opened fire on Thursday.
Israel said people died in a crush or were run over by aid lorries although it admitted its troops had opened fire on what it called a “mob”. But the head of a hospital in Gaza said 80% of injured people brought in had gunshot wounds.
On Friday, a UN team that visited some of the wounded in Gaza City’s al-Shifa hospital saw a “large number of gunshot wounds”, UN chief Antonio Guterres’s spokesman said.
The hospital received 70 of the dead and treated more than 700 wounded, of whom around 200 were still there during the team’s visit, spokesman Stéphane Dujarric said.
Populism is a political narrative. It surely can be used in any society, but it is part of the political discourse in a democratic system. If people are satisfied (at least to some degree) with the system and there aren't huge political problems, then populism stays on the fringe with a tiny part of the political system. There's always those people who think this way, just as there always are radicals in a democracy.Are you saying Populism is something like "voting," Basically? — Vaskane
Nations do need some kind of homogenization starting from being equal citizens. Even if patriotism and nationalism have their dark sides, you has to remember that they also connect people who otherwise have little if anything common. It's important for social cohesion.I think Nietzsche's quote on homogenization of the masses still applies through populism and thus rears conditions to build the strongest of tyrants. — Vaskane
And why is that? Because the state of Pakistan had it's own security agenda, which the Bush administration didn't care a shit about. There were there only for the terrorists ....and either you were with them or against them .And that's why it failed.Yet Pakistan didn’t perform or wasn’t cooperative as required. — neomac
So clearly wrongheaded that few people including myself saw the error that was being done. All you needed was read a bit. What was telling then was Scott Ritter, who had been part of the weapons inspection team and wrote a little book about there being no WMD program anymore before the invasion. Of course he faced the wrath of the US later and once those bridges are burnt, the only thing to get income is to be Putin's spokesperson.But how clearly wrongheaded did it look the idea of exploiting that "window of opportunity” within Bush administration, back then? — neomac
And a democracy to function, it ought to have the ability change the individuals that are in power. Violence already means that democracy isn't working.True but other societies may also use brute force and other aspects not permitted by democratic means. — Vaskane
When you take the side of the aggressor, you have to vilify the victim. Hence a) Ukrainians have no agency over their own country and b) they have to be corrupt and neo-nazis.Well, some people are decency-challenged. — jorndoe
That's the point: there is much to tell what is wrong. It can be a great narrative.Well, yes. Kind of.
They often correctly sense there is something wrong with the political elite. — Tzeentch
I agree. It can be really a really long thing that really takes ages to happen. Disillusionment doesn't happen in a day.Populism doesn't appear overnight. Usually years of neglect precede it, which is where all the anger and discontent comes from. — Tzeentch
Yet are these individuals? Or is this a class or something vague?The political elite no longer have the best interest of the nation at heart, and they have usurped the mechanism by which the nation could correct that. — Tzeentch
The real question is if targeting people is the answer in the first place.If innocent people get targeted, that is of course regrettable. — Tzeentch
Umm...let's look at some definitions populism."Populism" is a term that is used when a political elite continuously refuses to acknowledge problems that exist inside a society. — Tzeentch
a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.
Populism, political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labour parties.
This is a very valid point. Why would it be so negative and why would it lead to authoritarianism? And perhaps this comes into topic I would hope to be discussed.Many of this thread's participants seem to view "populism" as something negative, and therefore try to understand it in negative terms: "anti-democratic", "authoritarian", "truth-denying", etc. — Tzeentch
And it isn't just the democratic society, It's every society. That vast numbers of human beings live together simply necessitates cooperation, specialization of work and an economy. All this needs rules. One might be critical of them, but they are needed.This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. — Edward Bernays, Propaganda